News

Firm "no" to party pill testing on animals

New Zealanders strongly oppose testing psychoactive substances like party pills on animals.

A Horizon Resarch survey finds:

Only 14.8% of adult New Zealanders surveyed support allowing animal testing on psychoactive substances, like party pills, if it produces the best results

An overwhelming majority of 72.3% support either the introduction of guidelines stating when testing on animals should be permitted or a new clause in the Psychoactive Substances Bill preventing the use of animals in testing psychoactive substances

A further 13.4% said none of these options was acceptable, with 46% of this group wanting a total ban on party pills

There is majority support among voters for all parties currently in the Parliament for animal testing guidelines or a clause in Psychoactive Substances Bill, currently before Parliament, banning testing on animals. Of these two options, there is a 2 to 1 preference for adding a clause to the bill to prevent the use of animals in testing these substances.

Questionnaire

Respondents were told:

“The Psychoactive Substances Bill has recently been introduced to Parliament. The Bill, if passed, will require all synthetic psychoactive substances such as "party pills" to be proven to be safe before they can be sold. Each substance seeking approval under the act will require toxicological and behavioural testing to prove that it is safe.

A number of possible alternative tests have been identified and Health Ministry officials will be advising the Minister if a combination of these tests will be effective in demonstrating the safety of psychoactive substances.

The New Zealand Government has said that, consistent with New Zealand's animal welfare legislation, its preference is to avoid animal testing. Animal welfare groups say that if animals were used in testing these substances, rats and dogs would be the most likely to be used. Other countries have banned the use of animals in testing these kind of products."

Respondents were then asked which of four statements best reflected their view on testing these substances:

If animal testing produces the best results it should be allowed

Guidelines should be introduced stating when testing on animals should be permitted

The Government should add a clause to the Bill preventing the use of animals in testing these substances

None of these are acceptable (please tell us what is)

Drug testing support and opposition

The survey finds 14.8% support only for allowing animal testing if it produces the best results.

An overwhelming majority of 72.3% support either the introduction of guidelines stating when testing on animals should be permitted or a new clause in the Psychoactive Substances Bill preventing the use of animals in testing psychoactive substances.

A further 13.4% said none of these options was acceptable. In qualitative comments to explain why, most called for a complete ban on psychoactive substances or party pills. Some called for testing people who wanted to use party pills.

Total

Allow

Guidelines

Change bill to prevent

None of these are acceptable

ALL

2114

14.7%

23.4%

48.5%

13.4%

Support/ opposition by party vote

There is majority support among voters for all parties currently in the Parliament for animal testing guidelines or a clause in the bill banning testing on animals.

The policy is the responsibility of the Associate Minister of Health, Hon Peter Dunne, who is also leader of the United Future party. 77.6% of respondents who voted United Future at the 2011 general election want guidelines or a clause banning testing, while 10.9% only support testing if it produces the best results.

By party vote at the 2011 general election, 67.2% of National voters want guidelines or testing banned via the current bill. 76.1% of Labour voters, 81% of Green voters, 86.8% of Maori Party voters, 66.5% of New Zealand First voters, 59.2% of Mana and 48% of Act voters want this also.

Among Act voters 7.7% of its voters only supported testing if it produced the best result. The number of its supporters who want guidelines, a ban or an alternative totalled 92.3%.

Results according to voting at 2011 general election

PARTY VOTE 2011

Total

Allow

Guidelines

Change bill to prevent

None of these are acceptable

ACT New Zealand

1.4%

7.7%

11.9%

36.1%

44.2%

Conservative

3.5%

25.9%

36.3%

28.4%

9.4%

Green Party

12.9%

5.7%

17.8%

63.2%

13.4%

Labour Party

28.5%

11.8%

22.2%

53.9%

12.1%

Mana Party

1.1%

3.0%

1.4%

57.8%

37.8%

Maori Party

2.2%

10.4%

25.4%

61.4%

2.8%

National Party

31.1%

22.3%

24.9%

42.3%

10.4%

New Zealand First Party

8.7%

16.6%

30.9%

35.6%

16.9%

Other party

0.8%

2.1%

41.6%

27.1%

29.2%

United Future

0.7%

10.9%

13.9%

63.7%

11.5%

Chose not to vote

4.5%

11.3%

20.1%

59.8%

8.9%

Was not eligible to vote

1.0%

3.3%

53.7%

39.0%

4.0%

Don't know or can't remember

3.5%

8.6%

13.9%

41.1%

36.3%

Other view points

Some 208 comments were made by those who said none of the three options (supporting testing for best results, guidelines or ban) were acceptable to them.

Overall, 46% of qualitative responses called for a total ban on party pills, to avoid the need for animal testing and perceived social harm the drugs might cause.

Nearly a quarter wanted tests to be conducted on humans – mostly those making or using party pills. Some nominated prisoners and volunteers as those pills substances should be tested on.

21% were against animal testing totally, while 19% supported the use of animals in tests (some suggesting some animals, like rats, as more suitable than others).

dical research. This is not legitimate medical research”. Another commented: “There are guidelines on animal welfare now. What isn't provided is guidance on how to know whether it adds quality to the testing regime”.

Results in this report are from a Horizon Research survey of 2,114 New Zealanders 18+ (March 15-21, 2013). The sample is weighted and fully representative of the adult population nationwide. At a 95% confidence level the maximum margin of error is +/- 2.1%.